[jdk8u-dev] RFR: 8360869: jcstress is able to crash jdk8 on aarch64 with jfr on [v6]

[Jiří Vaněk]

On Wed, 17 Sep 2025 15:57:06 GMT, Andrew John Hughes <andrew at openjdk.org> wrote:

>>> I would move the `AC_MSG_RESULT` earlier i.e.
>>> 
>>> ```
>>>       AC_MSG_RESULT([found ($COMPILER_VERSION_NUMBER])
>>>       if test $COMPILER_VERSION_NUMBER_MAJOR -lt 5; then
>>>         AC_MSG_ERROR([GCC < 5 is known to lead to incorrect compilation on aarch64. See JDK-8360869.])
>>>       fi
>>> ```
>>> 
>> 
>> Sure, sounds good. Done.
>> 
>>> And yes, configure needs to be regenerated at present.
>> 
>> Any recommended version of autoconf to use? When I use 2.72, the diff is 90% of the file.
>>> 
>>> I've removed the approval request. This should only be done after successful review and with a comment as to why it is suitable for inclusion. Easier way is with the `/approval request` command.
>> 
>> Sure thing. Whether to do it or so, is if course on you and @theRealAph . I will do my best on how to do that. Thanx!
>
>> > I would move the `AC_MSG_RESULT` earlier i.e.
>> > ```
>> >       AC_MSG_RESULT([found ($COMPILER_VERSION_NUMBER])
>> >       if test $COMPILER_VERSION_NUMBER_MAJOR -lt 5; then
>> >         AC_MSG_ERROR([GCC < 5 is known to lead to incorrect compilation on aarch64. See JDK-8360869.])
>> >       fi
>> > ```
>> 
>> Sure, sounds good. Done.
> 
> 
> Thanks. This looks good with aph's amendments as well.
> 
> It should mean the checking line is always completed with the version number and the error is on its own line.
> 
>> 
>> > And yes, configure needs to be regenerated at present.
>> 
>> Any recommended version of autoconf to use? When I use 2.72, the diff is 90% of the file.
> 
> I'll look at what I used. You may need to dust off an older version (2.72 sounds very new, not sure I've seen that one yet)
> 
> It can produce differing results even with the same version from different distro packages, so I would like to drop it as we have on later JDKs. If you would rather wait on that backport, that's an alternative option. I would like to finally get that into the January update.
> 
>> 
>> > I've removed the approval request. This should only be done after successful review and with a comment as to why it is suitable for inclusion. Easier way is with the `/approval request` command.
>> 
>> Sure thing. Whether to do it or so, is if course on you and @theRealAph . I will do my best on how to do that. Thanx!
> 
> This is just the general process across all update releases. If there are PRs in the approval queue that still need a review, it clogs it up and can mean that ones that are ready to go are missed. In theory, there are a lot more reviewers than maintainers :)

@gnu-andrew  @theRealAph   Can we please approve this or reject? TY!

-------------

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/697#issuecomment-3803767491